Skip to main content
2 of 6
replaced http://meta.codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/

If your question is not real code…

Unlike other Stack Exchange sites, which encourage general reference questions and offer broadly applicable answers, Code Review aims to offer customized advice specific to your code. To make that work, we need to see real code.


If your question was asking for a review of pseudocode, then we need you to post an implementation in a real programming language. Some specific cases of pseudocode include:

  • If your question was about regular expressions in general, then please pick a specific programming language (e.g. ) and tag the question accordingly. Regular expressions differ significantly between programming languages.
  • If you are asking about a code excerpt that might be or or , we need you to pick a language and tag the question accordingly. Even if you think that the question is generic, reviewers might offer different advice depending on the language.
  • If you are asking to review code in a language for which a specification exists but for which there is no interpreter or compiler implemented, then Code Review is not the place to ask.

If your question contains stub code, then there are significant pieces of the core functionality missing, and we need you to fill in the details. Excerpts of large projects are fine, but if you have omitted too much, then reviewers are left imagining how your program works.


If your code was deemed to be example code, too hypothetical to be meaningfully reviewed, then we need you to provide concrete details.

  • Remove any hedging language such as "Suppose I have code like���" and "For example…" from your question.
  • Replace generic identifiers such as foo and MyClass with something that would plausibly appear in a real, useful program.
  • Sometimes, authors are unable to post real code due to employers' confidentiality policies. In that case, consider fabricating a related realistic program that looks plausibly useful. In other words, instead of omitting details that you can't reveal, make up details instead. (When we point out issues with your fabricated example, just play along. Please don't reply with "what if…" comments.)
200_success Mod
  • 145.7k
  • 4
  • 114
  • 284